“You need to understand, and I’m sure you do, that these days it doesn’t take much to turn a law-abiding citizen into something other. And if there is a gun handy, it’s even easier.”

You best check your facts on a statement like that. You’ll find with a bit of research that when guns are removed from the hands of upstanding and law abiding citizens or when their ability to obtain them is limited, violent crime increases. Look it up.

So if 1000 guns are sold at gun shows where the transaction takes place between private individuals, there’s the chance that 20 of those guns could be used in a crime. Still, 980 did not.

Jay, there is a chance, a very, very slim chance, that all 1000 could be used in a crime. The likelihood that a 1911 .45 Colt Repeater (or whatever, don’t sic Pedantic Man on me for getting that wrong; you know what I mean) will be used in a hold up is pretty small. As you have said, criminals who want guns will find a way to get them. I think that is the area we should be focusing on, perhaps not the casual collector. So, how do we do that? What better way of tracking guns that are made now or in the last, say 15 years, is there? Is there any reason that a casual collector needs an Uzi or an AK-47?
As I have said, my goal is to have fewer toddlers blowing their brains out, not infringing on the rights of citizens. You need to understand, and I’m sure you do, that these days it doesn’t take much to turn a law-abiding citizen into something other. And if there is a gun handy, it’s even easier.

Actually there is a constitutional right and the Supreme Court will finally acknowledge that in June. If you don’t choose to own a gun, that’s your decision. Just as if you choose never to engage in free speech.

As for the drunk driving, you’re still not understanding the point. It’s not about going to register a car while you’re drunk. You’re way out in left field on that. Let me try this one more time.

You think having background checks at gun shows for sales between two private individuals should be in place, correct? Even it is not, let’s assume that it is. The question is, Why? Well, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who otherwise would not be able to obtain one if a background check were performed. Great. So the next question is: How many guns sold at gun shows are used in committing crimes? Less than 2%. So if 1000 guns are sold at gun shows where the transaction takes place between private individuals, there’s the chance that 20 of those guns could be used in a crime. Still, 980 did not. You say, “Well it’s worth it if it means those 20 crimes won’t be committed.”

But the numbers or so small, that it doesn’t make sense to put the burden on the the 98% of those who aren’t using the guns for criminal activity. If I’m a collector and I attend gun shows to purchase military issued pistols from WWII, why should I have to undergo a background check, each and every time I purchase one? Or the 979 other guys behind me? Because a handful in there might use it to commit a crime? How does this make any sense?

Now, as for the drunk driving, we don’t put that burden the law abiding citizen. Let’s use the same numbers. 1000 people randomly go to a restaurant, bar, club, etc. 2% of them are going to cause injury or death to somebody else because they decided to drink and drive. Yet, we don’t put any undo burden on the 980 that didn’t do we? We don’t make them get a background check to make sure they’re allowed to drive before we let them enter an establishment that serves alcohol, do we? No. There aren’t DUI tests performed on every person who drives that leaves an establishment that serves alcohol is there? Wouldn’t it be “worth it” if those 20 people who were going to cause injury or death to somebody because of drunk driving were caught BEFORE they hurt somebody?

Why is one more strictly regulated while the other is not? Because of the precious 2nd amendment? Gimme a break.

Basically, yes. You do not have a constitutional right to own a car or drive. And you actually think the car is more strictly regulated? Let’s see:

There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile.
Anyone can purchase an automobile as long as they can sign a legal contract to pay for it.
You are not required to lock up your car and keep it away from children.
People convicted of felonies or domestic violence can own an automobile.
Anyone paying cash can purchase an automobile, even if they’re under 18.
You do not have to have a driver’s license to buy an automobile.
There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.
The government can’t limit the features of your car, such as top speed, fuel capacity, horsepower, etc.
You only need to register an automobile if you plan to use it on the street.

But let’s go further in saying cars are less regulated. Let’s say they were regulated exactly the same (which you think is less):

Convicted felons could not own or drive a car.
You’d pay for a car, register it and then wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up your car (in some states).
Purchasing a used car from a neighbor requires the same waiting period and you would have to transact the sale through a licensed car dealer.(in some states)
You could buy a car, register it but you’d need a special permit to take in on the streets.
Persons convicted of “domestic violence” could not own or drive a car, even if that occurred 30 years ago.
Cars have to be stored where no child could access it and hurt themselves playing with it.
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) you would have to store your car partially disassembled.
Some models of automobiles might be banned after you buy them and you’d have to turn them over to the government without compensation.
You could not modify your car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering.
It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller.
Car dealers would have to allow government agents to review their records without a warrant and without notice.

Can we start by agreeing the “so called” “loophole” refers to the fact that those who are not supposed to be able to acquire guns can do so by purchsing them in private transactions whereever thos transactions may occur (i.e., not necessarily just at gun shows)? That way we’re sure we’re both talking about the same thing.

As for what info: I admit not having stats at hand so can’t quote specific numbers, but (as you stated) if 2% of crimes commited with a firearm are traced back to a sale at a gun show it is not unreasonable at all to assume fraction of crimes are committed by guns acquired thru sales by private individuals. Wouldn’t making those sales also subject to background checks tend make some of those private sales, those which shouldn’t happen, not happen?

So we’re balancing the effort the seller has to go thru against the possibility that a gun is sold to someone who shouldn’t have it. So let me ask you, what threshold would have to be reached? How many crimes would have to be prevented before you feel plugging this route by which guns get to people who shouldn’t have them is worthwhile? 5? 50? 50,000?

I’m trying, but it ain’t easy. I hope I am coming across.

The analogy was drawn up to show how we treat drunk driving vis a vis background checks at gun shows between private sellers.

No, it wasn’t. You’re taking extreme liberties with this analogy. Would I go to the DMV to register my car while I was snot-flying drunk? Yeah, no, I don’t think so. Would I go looking to buy a car with a bottle of JD in my hand? So are you saying that registering my car is an unfair burden on me because I don’t drive drunk?
Drunk driving is to buying a gun at a gun show as letting blind people drive is to going to the movies. Not the same.
Let’s take the drunk driver out of this equation, OK? Put both hypothetical people on the same footing. One person is buying a gun from his neighbor. The other person is buying a car from his neighbor. One has to register with the state. The other does not. Both purchases have the power to kill, if used indiscriminately.
Why is one more strictly regulated while the other is not? Because of the precious 2nd amendment? Gimme a break.

Hey, I’m not saying anything out of the ordinary Sean.

Let me just ask: What information is out there that makes the closing of the so called “gun show loophole” so necessary?

I didn’t say any proposal, but closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” certainly would.

If a law-abiding citizen goes through the hoops to make sure he/she obtained their weapon legally, I think, would be more confident, knowing that they “abided” by the law.

Because a person who is a law abiding citizen doesn’t need to go through some process to tell them they are. Do you call the motor vehicle department every time you drive your car to determine you’re legally allowed to drive?

Your drunk driving analogy is flawed, however, because, just as we all know people shouldn’t drive when they’ve had a few, we also know that one shouldn’t be messing with guns while drunk also.

My analogy has nothing to do with what people should know. The analogy was drawn up to show how we treat drunk driving vis a vis background checks at gun shows between private sellers. People are prepared to pass laws that will put the burden of proof on the vast majority of people to prove they’re not prohibited from owning a firearm, but the same people would balk at the same kind of tactics aimed at reducing deaths and injuries resulting from drunk driving.

“What’s the big deal?” is the question asked about requiring background checks between private individuals at a gun show, but the reaction would be, “Are you fu**ing crazy?” to a proposal that would require them to have a background check every time they went to a place where alcohol was served.

It’s the same principal, but one is ok and the other isn’t. Why is that?

I just want to know why should it be easier to get a weapon than a car?

There’s no constitutional right to have a car.

Fair enough. How many can’t be traced at all?

Ok, so…Private sales of guns are legal, unless one of the parties fails the letter of the law, in which case they are not legal.

Yes and we all know that once somebody doesn’t pass a background check, that person is surrounded by a netherworld forcefield that prevents them from acquiring a gun any other way.
Exactly my point.
I don’t see why it is such a black & white world with you, Jay. Any proposal aimed at reducing the number of guns obtained illegally somehow becomes a burden on law abiding citizens? Why is it such a burden? If a law-abiding citizen goes through the hoops to make sure he/she obtained their weapon legally, I think, would be more confident, knowing that they “abided” by the law.
Your drunk driving analogy is flawed, however, because, just as we all know people shouldn’t drive when they’ve had a few, we also know that one shouldn’t be messing with guns while drunk also.
A gun is an inanimate object, same as a car. Both have the potential to cause pleasure (of a sort) or misery, depending on the user.
I just want to know why should it be easier to get a weapon than a car?

That post (viewable as soon as it gets thru moderation) was by me.

- Sean

Only once someone who is being intellectually honest makes them.

And your reading comprehension is in serious need of improvement.

Fafaroo, your ad hominem, red herrings and other various forms of logical fallacies are noted. Hopefully, somebody with some intellectual honesty will step up to address the points I have made.

This, for instance, is easily the most dazzlingly obvious strawman you have ever constructed:

Can you comprehend how foolish you come off saying a background check will completely prevent a person from getting a gun?

To write something like that requires a serious suppression of good will and reason, the likes of which no mortal troll could possibly achieve. But what’s truly worthy of awe is that you managed you keep your reason locked in a choke hold long enough to go on to write this:

“You start having background checks for private sales at gun shows the only thing you will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to continue to be a law abiding citizen.”

Limiting the easy sale of guns to felons forces average citizens to break the law? That’s the stuff of right wing champions, man. My hat is off to you. The icing on the cake comes next, however, when you suggest that forcing criminals to buy guns from other criminals only takes money away from average, hard-working people who only want to make a little money while clearing out their garages of unwanted stuff:

They’ll be able to get guns anyway. Do you think gang members got their guns from a gun show or at a garage sale?

A more heroic defense of the little guy entrepreneur has never been composed.

Indeed, the whole post is just truly commendable in its obtuseness. You really only falter here once. When you wrote:

Let’s look at it from another perspective because I know some people (and Fafaroo has already done so) are going to say that the families of the victims of that 2% would certainly want such laws passed.

You clearly missed my comment:

I’m perfectly willing to concede that the solution — requiring everyone who sells a gun to run a background check — maybe too onerous given the stats on crimes in which guns so-purchased are implicated.

Of course the drunk driving analogy is a classic of the anti-gun control crowd so I can see why you would have been tempted to throw it in anyway as an nod to the valiant hacks who have come before. I nice final tribute as you go for the gold.

And why were we humble creatures treated to such a magisterial display? Because in your first post you unthinkingly regurgitated some right wing bullshit — “There is no gun show loophole.” — and you simply can’t admit you were one hundred percent wrong. It’s a truly amazing thing to behold a conservative rise so surely to the task of defending his brain from reality. Thanks, Jay. It’s been a real treat.

Yes and we all know that once somebody doesn’t pass a background check, that person is surrounded by a netherworld forcefield that prevents them from acquiring a gun any other way. They go to an area of the city or contact a person who can get them a gun, and those contacts say, “Sorry man. I see that forcefield around you. You didn’t pass a background check. Come back some other time.”

Can you comprehend how foolish you come off saying a background check will completely prevent a person from getting a gun?

A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.

Thank you. Just because a background check does not take place, does not mean the person in question is not violating the law. Whether the person buys at a gun show, from a garage sale, from a drug dealer, gets it from a brother or cousin, finds one on the street, has a genie in a bottle grant him a wish, finds a pot of Glocks at the end of a rainbow, or does a voodoo chant that makes one spring up from the ground, the moment he puts that firearm in his hand, he has committed a crime on both the state and federal level. You start having background checks for private sales at gun shows the only thing you will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to continue to be a law abiding citizen.

As long as that is the case people who are not supposed to be able to get guns are able to get guns.

They’ll be able to get guns anyway. Do you think gang members got their guns from a gun show or at a garage sale?

This is an illogical situation. (Even Jay agreed to that.)

Actually, I said it was illogical to apply it only to private sales at gun shows.

Let me ask you something, Jay. Are you satisfied with the current system as it is now? Are you satisfied that the way the system works right now is adequate in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals or other evil doers?

Ah, now we get to the real crux of the issue. Yes, I am satisfied because while people talk about all of the crimes committed in America with guns, it represents a minuscule percentage of the amount of guns owned in this country. Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with a firearm are traced back to a sale at a gun show. That means 98% of the transactions that take place at gun shows result in no crimes being committed. Yet, people support that passage of a law that will:

A. Not have any negligible affect on crime (since so few criminals buy guns at gun shows)

B. Not have any affect on private sales outside of gun shows.

Now, private sales of guns without a background check is legal in the majority of the states and has been for a long long time. Do we have some sort of epidemic of crimes being committed as a result of private sales of firearms? No. So why should we put in place a law that will hardly help in preventing crime and will only place a burden on law abiding citizens?

Now before you answer that. Let’s look at it from another perspective because I know some people (and Fafaroo has already done so) are going to say that the families of the victims of that 2% would certainly want such laws passed. So let’s look at the situation elsewhere.

You mentioned cars before. Drunk driving is responsible for far more deaths each year than crimes committed by people who purchase guns at gun shows. Of course, those crimes (and drunk driving in and of itself is a crime) are committed by a very small percentage of the general public that drives. Yet, what do we do about drunk driving with regard to legislation? States have

A. Lowered legal limits on being drunk (.08% seems to be the norm these days)

B. Improved technology to test people in the field to see if they are drunk

C. Increased penalties for drunk driving.

What we do not do, is place burdens on the vast majority of law abiding citizens that don’t drive drunk. What if Congress decided to pass a law that said everybody who went to any establishment where alcohol was served had to show their license and have a check run on it to see that the person’s license wasn’t suspended due to a drunk driving conviction? Or passed a law that said anybody going to a place where alcohol was served was prohibited from driving a motor vehicle of any kind? How well would that go over with the public? Do you think the X% of people who have lost loved ones due to a drunk driver would support such laws? And would it be ‘reasonable’ to put such laws in place if it was going to save even one life?

* an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
news.firstdata.com/glossary.cfm

American Heritage Dictionary
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

It’s exactly what you were saying. Next time though, try throwing in some swear words for clarity’s sake!